bluurd

Buzzwords....buzzwords everywhere

You just did the exact thing you accused me of doing. Comparing lightning strikes to all US citizens to student deaths by gun.

One is still significantly less likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by gun violence. But as most of us know, there are also those injured by guns and those traumatized by the gun violence in schools.

To claim otherwise is absolutely absurd and disingenuous.

Yet the job is performed quite well by those in their 40s. Why is the cut off 31?

From a quick search, I found this article that says your odds of getting struck by lightning is 1 in 15300. Which equates to 0.00653595% of the population in the USA being struck. The article mentions that over 90% of those struck survive.

I dont know how accurate the information is, but the article claims to be referencing the National Weather Service so it is likely a good source.

Now compare this to the data we have from OP's research (again, I don't know how accurate) that claims 0.66% of the student population is exposed to gun violence. I don't know the survival rate.

This shows that students are 1000 times more likely to experience gun violence than being struck by lightning.

It is interesting how those over 40 cannot be discriminated due to age as it is a FEDEDERALLY protected class, except for this federal job...

Why is this job exempt from this discrimination?

Edit: I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted for a very valid question. I am curious about the legal standpoint of this.